DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on March 12, 2024 and September 23, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities. The claims document includes line numbers, which pose the possibility for confusion with the claim numbering. Applicant is encouraged to remove the line numbers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 2231 (see figures 14-17).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities – see Objection to the Drawings above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first surface areas" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two first surface areas" on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two first surface areas" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first surface areas" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the first surface areas" (lines 1-2) and “the outermost negative electrode sheet” (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation: “in the two first surface areas of the outermost negative electrode sheet” (lines 2-3). It is unclear what this limitation intends to convey.
The claim is interpreted to have been intended to require an outermost negative electrode sheet having the porous matrix and claimed thicknesses of the two first surface areas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0092921, hereinafter Matsumura.
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches a negative electrode sheet. The negative electrode sheet includes a metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”). The metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area in its thickness direction. An electrically insulating layer (312, “first insulator”) covers the first surface area of the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) (paragraphs [0024, 0025] and figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumura teaches that the electrically insulating layer (312, “first insulator”) covers the full surface of the first surface area (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura teaches that the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura teaches that the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the two first surface areas have the same thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura teaches that the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that one surface area of the two first surface areas has a greater thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches that the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area is in the range from 1% to 10% of the thickness of the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”).
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura teaches a metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura teaches that the metal foam is foam copper (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura teaches that all of the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) is covered by the electrically insulating layer (paragraph [0025]).
Therefore, it is understood that second surfaces located on both sides of the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) in a direction perpendicular to the thickness direction are covered by the electrically insulating layer (“second insulator”).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura teaches an electrode assembly. The electrode assembly includes a positive electrode sheet and the negative electrode sheet of claim 1. The negative electrode sheet and the positive electrode sheet are laminated (paragraph [0024] and figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, Matsumura teaches that the metal surface of the first surface area of the negative electrode sheet positioned opposite the positive electrode sheet is covered with the electrically insulating layer (312, “first insulator”) (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Matsumura’s negative electrode sheet is an “outermost” negative electrode sheet (figures 3 and 4). Matsumura teaches that the metal foam current collector (310, “porous matrix”) of the negative electrode sheet has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area facing the positive electrode sheet is less than the thickness of the surface area facing away from the positive electrode sheet.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0252092, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a negative electrode sheet (120). The negative electrode sheet (120) includes a metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) (paragraphs [0022, 0023]). The metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a first surface area in its thickness direction (figure 1). A polymer binder layer (140) covers the first surface area of the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) (paragraph [0025]). The polymer binder may be PVDF and the like (paragraph [0026]). These are electrically insulating materials. Therefore, the polymer binder layer (140) is a “first insulator”.
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches that the polymer binder layer (140, “first insulator”) covers the full surface of the first surface area (paragraph [0025] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the two first surface areas have the same thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that one surface area of the two first surface areas has a greater thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area is in the range from 1% to 10% of the thickness of the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a porosity in the range 20%-95% (paragraph [0023]). Therefore, the first surface area is understood to have a porosity P in the range 20%-95%.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Huang teaches a foam copper current collector (“porous matrix”) (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches an electrode assembly. The electrode assembly includes a positive electrode sheet (110) and the negative electrode sheet (120) of claim 1. The negative electrode sheet (120) and the positive electrode sheet (110) are laminated (paragraph [0021] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Huang teaches that the metal surface of the first surface area of the negative electrode sheet (120) positioned opposite the positive electrode sheet (110) is covered with the polymer binder layer (140, “first insulator”) (paragraph [0025] and figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Huang’s negative electrode sheet (120) is an “outermost” negative electrode sheet (figure 1). Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) of the negative electrode sheet (120) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
An arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area facing the positive electrode sheet (110) is less than the thickness of the surface area facing away from the positive electrode sheet (110).
Claims 1-6, 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,309,540, hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches an anode (100, “negative electrode sheet”) (col. 3, lines 21-28 and figure 1). The anode (100, “negative electrode sheet”) includes a porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) (col. 4, lines 12-14). The porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area in its thickness direction (figure 1). An adhesion layer (112) covers the first surface area of the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) (col. 3, lines 25-28 and figure 1). The adhesion layer (112) includes the polymer PVDF and a ceramic material (col. 5, lines 43-46). These are electrically insulating materials. Therefore, the adhesion layer (112) is a “first insulator”.
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches that the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”) covers the full surface of the first surface area (figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches that the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Brown teaches that the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the two first surface areas have the same thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Brown teaches that porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that one surface area of the two first surface areas has a greater thickness.
Regarding claim 6, Brown teaches that the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area is in the range from 1% to 10% of the thickness of the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”).
Regarding claim 8, Brown teaches that the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) has a porosity in the range 60% to 80% (col. 4, lines 5-6). Therefore, the first surface area is understood to have a porosity P in the range 60%-80%.
Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches an electrode assembly. The electrode assembly includes a cathode (8, “positive electrode sheet”) and the anode (“negative electrode sheet”) of claim 1. The cathode (8, “positive electrode sheet”) and the anode (“negative electrode sheet”) are laminated (col. 5, lines 60-67; col. 6, lines 1-3 and figure 9).
Regarding claim 16, Brown teaches that the metal surface of the first surface area of the anode (“negative electrode sheet”) positioned opposite the cathode (8, “positive electrode sheet”) is covered with the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”) (figures 1 and 9).
Regarding claim 17, Brown’s anode (100, “negative electrode sheet”) is an “outermost” negative electrode sheet (figures 1 and 9). Brown teaches that the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) of the anode (100, “negative electrode sheet”) has a first surface area on both sides in its thickness direction (figure 1).
It is noted that the present claims do not define any boundaries or descriptors that limit the extent of the “first surface area”. As such, any area on the surface of the porous matrix may be considered “the first surface area”. Similarly, any thickness (provided that it is smaller than the thickness of the porous matrix) may be designated “a thickness of the first surface area”.
Thus, an arbitrary thickness could be assigned to each surface area such that the thickness of the surface area facing the cathode (“positive electrode sheet”) is less than the thickness of the surface area facing away from the cathode (“positive electrode sheet”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0252092, hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches that the polymer binder layer (140, “first insulator”) covers the first surface area with a thickness in the range 0.1 µm (100 nm) to 10 µm (paragraph [0026]).
Huang’s optimum thickness range overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 10 nm to 100 nm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0252092, hereinafter Huang as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0372780, hereinafter Sohn.
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches that the metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) has a porosity in the range 20%-95% (paragraph [0023]). The active material of the negative electrode sheet (120) is accommodated in the pores (paragraph [0023]). Huang does not specify the pore size of the pores.
Huang fails to teach a pore size of the pores.
Sohn teaches a copper foam current collector having a porosity in the range 50% to 98% and a pore diameter in the range 0.2 µm to 100 µm (paragraphs [0024, 0027]). The active material in Sohn’s electrode is accommodated in the pores of the current collector (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Huang’s metal foam current collector (“porous matrix”) with pores having a diameter in the range 0.2 µm to 100 µm for the purpose of providing sufficient space for accommodating the active material.
The optimum pore size range of Huang as modified by Sohn overlaps the instant application's optimum range of 50 µm to 300 µm. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,309,540, hereinafter Brown as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0092921, hereinafter Matsumara.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Brown teaches a porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) whose pores are used for the preferential deposition of lithium during charging of the battery (abstract, col. 4, lines 12-14).
Brown fails to teach that the porous metal is foam copper.
Matsumara teaches foam copper whose pores are used for the deposition of lithium during charging of a lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0022]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a foam copper as the porous metal host structure (108, “porous matrix”) in Brown’s assembly without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,309,540, hereinafter Brown as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,387,565, hereinafter Aihara.
Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches that the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”) is porous PVDF and includes a ceramic particle filler (col. 5, lines 43-47). Brown does not specify the particle size of the ceramic filler.
Brown fails to teach a particle size of the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”).
The use of a ceramic particle filler to form porous PVDF adhesion layers is known in the art – see, e.g. Aihara (col. 4, lines 22-24; col. 5, lines 21-24; col. 6, lines 12-15). Aihara teaches that the particle size is selected to assist in forming pores of appropriate size (col. 4, lines 38-56). In a specific example, Aihara teaches an adhesion layer formed from PVDF and alumina particles with a diameter of 10 nm (col. 7, lines 3-9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ceramic particle filler with a size of 10 nm for the purpose of forming appropriate size pores in Brown’s adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”).
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches that the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”) is porous PVDF and includes a ceramic particle filler (col. 5, lines 43-47). Brown does not specify the identity of the ceramic filler.
Brown fails to teach that a material of the adhesion layer (112, “first insulator”) is aluminum oxide or zirconium oxide.
It is well-known in the art to use aluminum oxide or zirconium oxide as the ceramic particle filler in PVDF adhesion layers – see, e.g. Aihara (col. 4, lines 22-24; col. 5, lines 21-24; col. 6, lines 12-15; col. 7, lines 3-8).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select aluminum oxide or zirconium oxide as the ceramic particle filler as these materials are stable in battery electrolyte and are known materials used to assist in forming a porous adhesion layer in a battery electrode assembly.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,309,540, hereinafter Brown as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0407112, hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 18, Brown teaches a battery cell (10). The battery cell (10) comprises the electrode assembly of claim 15 (col. 5, lines 60-62 and figure 9).
Brown fails to teach a shell.
It is well-known in the art that battery cells of the type taught by Brown require a battery container (“shell”) to hold the electrode assembly and electrolyte – see, e.g. Dai (paragraphs [0022, 0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate Brown’s electrode assembly inside a container (“shell”) for the purpose of containing the electrode assembly and electrolyte and protecting them from the environment.
Regarding claim 19, Brown teaches a battery pack (“battery”) comprising the battery cell (10) (col. 2, lines 44-45).
Brown fails to teach that the battery pack (“battery”) comprises a box accommodating the battery cell.
It is well-known in the art that a battery pack includes a case (“box”) accommodating the battery cells making up the battery pack – see, e.g. Dai (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a case (“box”) to accommodate the battery cells making up Brown’s battery pack (“battery”) for the purpose of holding the battery cells and protecting them from the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Brown teaches a battery pack (“electrical device”) comprising the battery cell (10) (col. 2, lines 44-45).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0092921, hereinafter Matsumura as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0407112, hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura teaches a battery cell (300). The battery cell (300) comprises the electrode assembly of claim 15 (paragraph [0025] and figures 3 and 4).
Matsumura fails to teach a shell.
It is well-known in the art that battery cells of the type taught by Matsumura require a battery case (“shell”) to hold the electrode assembly and electrolyte – see, e.g. Dai (paragraphs [0022, 0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate Matsumura’s electrode assembly inside a case (“shell”) for the purpose of containing the electrode assembly and electrolyte and protecting them from the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Matsumura teaches an electrical device (600) comprising the battery cell (300) (paragraph [0032]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0252092, hereinafter Huang as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0407112, hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 18, Huang teaches a battery cell (100). The battery cell (100) comprises the electrode assembly of claim 15 (paragraph [0021] and figure 1).
Huang fails to teach a shell.
It is well-known in the art that battery cells of the type taught by Huang require a battery container (“shell”) to hold the electrode assembly and electrolyte – see, e.g. Dai (paragraphs [0022, 0023]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accommodate Huang’s electrode assembly inside a container (“shell”) for the purpose of containing the electrode assembly and electrolyte and protecting them from the environment.
Regarding claim 19, Huang teaches a battery cell (100) (paragraph [0021] and figure 1).
Huang fails to teach a battery comprising a box accommodating the battery cell (100).
It is well-known in the art to connect multiple battery cells together to form a battery pack (“battery”) and to accommodate the battery cells in a case (“box”) – see, e.g. Dai (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect multiples of Huang’s battery cells to form a battery pack (“battery”) and to accommodate the battery cells of the battery pack (“battery”) in a case (“box”) for the purpose of achieving a desired power and protecting the battery cells of the battery pack (“battery”) from the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Huang teaches a battery cell (100) (paragraph [0021] and figure 1).
Huang fails to teach an electrical device comprising the battery cell (100).
It is well-known in the art that battery cells are used to power electrical devices – see, e.g. Dai (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Huang’s battery cell (100) in an electrical device for the purpose of powering the electrical device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/814,613 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3 and 11 of the reference application anticipate instant claims 1, 10, 11 and 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/948,934 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 9 of the reference application anticipate instant claims 1, 10 and 11.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 15, 16, 18 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/948,934 in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0407112, hereinafter Dai.
Claims 1, 16 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/948,934 include all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 15, 16, 18 and 20 except for a metal surface of the first surface area and a shell of the battery cell.
It is well-known in the art that current collectors are typically made of metal, because metal is a preferred electrically conductive material (Dai’s paragraph [0026]). It is also well-known to accommodate the electrode assembly in a battery container (“shell”) (Dai’s paragraphs [0022, 0023]). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artist to form the current collector from metal to take advantage of its electrical conductivity and to accommodate the electrode assembly in a shell for the purpose of protecting it from the environment.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILIA V NEDIALKOVA whose telephone number is (571)270-1538. The examiner can normally be reached 8.30 - 5.00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LILIA NEDIALKOVA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights